{ "id": 11916336, "name": "IN THE MATTER OF: SAPHIRE ROSE REINHARDT", "name_abbreviation": "In re Reinhardt", "decision_date": "1995-12-19", "docket_number": "No. COA95-224", "first_page": "201", "last_page": "205", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "121 N.C. App. 201" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "38 ALR4th 756", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "42 U.S.C.A. \u00a7 671", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "U.S.C.", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "400 S.E.2d 71", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "73" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "101 N.C. App. 550", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527964 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "553" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/101/0550-01" ] }, { "cite": "319 S.E.2d 567", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "573" }, { "page": "573" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "311 N.C. 586", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4683884 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "596" }, { "page": "597" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/311/0586-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 424, "char_count": 7644, "ocr_confidence": 0.758, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2826999043432243e-07, "percentile": 0.6179414321066595 }, "sha256": "2cc418af7aaae0defadd88363bc560c4141c142c67bed76c15110d6f615941ba", "simhash": "1:2a9ad5ae12633d73", "word_count": 1271 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:54:48.563497+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges MARTIN, Mark D., and McGEE concur." ], "parties": [ "IN THE MATTER OF: SAPHIRE ROSE REINHARDT" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nRespondent mother Angela Reinhardt (mother) appeals a district court order providing for continued placement of her minor child Saphire Rose Reinhardt (minor child) with the Burke County Department of Social Services (DSS).\nOn 30 December 1993 DSS filed a petition alleging dependency of the minor child. DSS amended the petition on 5 January 1994 alleging neglect on the grounds that the minor child did \u201cnot receive proper care from her parents and live[d] in an environment injurious to her welfare.\u201d\nOn 3 February 1994 Judge Nancy L. Einstein adjudged the minor child neglected and dependent, and ordered the minor child be placed in the custody of DSS. Regular periodic reviews of the placement, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-657, were conducted by the trial court, with the last review being held on 18 August 1994. At that hearing the trial court found as a fact that the mother \u201csuffer[s] from diminished capacity and/or psychological problems which inhibit[s] [her] from making appropriate decisions for the juvenile\u2019s care.\u201d The trial court concluded that the \u201cbest interests of the juvenile would be served\u201d by continuing custody with DSS. The trial court further concluded that all reasonable efforts to reunify the parents and child \u201cshall cease.\u201d\nThe relevant evidence before the trial court, at the review hearing, reveals that, on 29 April 1994, the mother was evaluated by a psychologist who opined that there was not \u201cany psychological evidence of psychopathology that would prevent [the mother] from being able to provide care for her infant daughter.\u201d He further stated that she was \u201crather naive and vulnerable to the influence of others . . . and tended to mirror her husband[\u2019]s volatile, verbal outrages.\u201d The mother was living in a trailer which had a \u201csmell of a kerosene-like substance.\u201d The trailer was the same residence the mother occupied at the time the child was removed from the home, when it was discovered that there was a fuel leak \u201cwhich caused the trailer to become saturated with fuel . . . [and] be a fire hazard.\u201d The mother has refused to find other housing, although assisted in this effort by DSS, on the grounds that she did not want to move from the area and there was nothing else available in that area.\nThe issues presented are whether (I) the evidence supports the finding that the mother suffers from diminished capacity and/or psychological problems; and (II) the trial court has authority to order that reasonable efforts to reunite the family cease.\nI\nOnce a child is removed from the custody of her parents because of abuse, neglect or dependency, the trial court is required to conduct periodic reviews of that placement. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-657(a) (1989). At the review hearing, the child is to be returned to the parentis) from whom custody was taken \u201cif the trial court finds sufficient facts to show that the child \u2018will receive proper care and supervision\u2019 from the parent(s) . . . [and that] \u2018placement... is deemed to be in the best interest of the [child].\u2019 \u201d In re Shue, 311 N.C. 586, 596, 319 S.E.2d 567, 573 (1984). It remains the responsibility of the trial court to solicit the presentation of evidence that will enable it to make this determination, as neither the parent(s) or DSS has the burden of proof at this hearing. In re Shue, 311 N.C. at 597, 319 S.E.2d at 573.\nAny findings entered by the trial court must be supported by competent evidence in the record. In re Isenhour, 101 N.C. App. 550, 553, 400 S.E.2d 71, 73 (1991). The evidence in this case does not support the finding of the trial court that the mother has a psychological problem. The evidence from the psychologist in fact supports a contrary finding. The evidence, however, can support a finding that the mother has a \u201cdiminished capacity . . . which inhibits] [her] from making appropriate decisions for the juvenile\u2019s care.\u201d It is not necessary, as the mother suggests, that there be evidence of mental retardation, mental illness, organic brain syndrome, or some other degenerative mental condition. Such evidence would be required in a termination of parental rights determination, where the termination is sought pursuant to subsection 7. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-289.32(7) (Supp. 1994) (requirements for termination of parental rights). The evidence is sufficient, in this section 657 review hearing, if it evinces a lack of \u201c[a]bility to perform mentally\u201d and that lack of ability impedes the mother\u2019s child care decisions. Taber\u2019s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary 278 (16th ed. 1989) (defining capacity). In this record, there is evidence that the mother is \u201cvulnerable to the influence of others\u201d and does not \u201cproduce her own opinion[s].\u201d Furthermore, she continues to live in a trailer that has the \u201csmell of... kerosene,\u201d the very problem that gave rise to the original removal of the minor child from the home, and has resisted efforts of DSS to locate new housing.\nII\nDSS has an affirmative statutory obligation to make reasonable efforts \u201cto prevent or eliminate the need for placement of the juvenile in foster care.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-657(e); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-651(c)(2) (Supp. 1994); see 42 U.S.C.A. \u00a7 671(a) (West 1995). The statutes do not permit the trial court to relieve DSS of this duty and indeed at each review hearing, the trial court is required to make findings as to the efforts of DSS to reunify the family. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-657(e); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-651(c)(2). Accordingly, the directive attempting to relieve DSS of its obligation to make reasonable efforts to reunite the family must be eliminated from the 18 August 1994 order. At the next review hearing, the trial judge may properly evaluate the reasonableness of the efforts by DSS in light of the needs of the parents and their responsiveness to the efforts.\nModified and affirmed.\nJudges MARTIN, Mark D., and McGEE concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "GREENE, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Stephen M. Schoeberle for petitioner-appellee Burke County Department of Social Services.", "Russell R. Becker for respondent-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF: SAPHIRE ROSE REINHARDT\nNo. COA95-224\n(Filed 19 December 1995)\n1. Infants or Minors \u00a7 120 (NCI4th)\u2014 dependent and neglected child \u2014 diminished capacity of mother \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThough the evidence was insufficient to support the finding of the trial court in a review hearing following a dependency determination that the mother of the minor child in question had a psychological problem, it was sufficient to support a finding that the mother had a diminished capacity which inhibited her from making appropriate decisions for the juvenile\u2019s care where such evidence tended to show that the mother was vulnerable to the influence of others and did not produce her own opinions, and she continued to live in a trailer which had the smell of kerosene, the very problem which gave rise to the original removal of the minor child from the home. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-657(a)\nAm Jur 2d, Juvenile Courts and Delinquent and Dependent Children \u00a7\u00a7 45-51, 104.\nValidity and application of statute allowing endangered child to be temporarily removed from parental custody. 38 ALR4th 756.\n2. Infants or Minors \u00a7 121 (NCI4th)\u2014 efforts to reunite family \u2014 order to cease \u2014 no authority of trial court to enter\nThe trial court was without authority to order that reasonable efforts to reunite the parents and a dependent and neglected minor child should cease. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-657(e); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-651(c)(2).\n\u00c1m Jur 2d, Infants \u00a7 16; Juvenile Courts and Delinquent and Dependent Children \u00a7\u00a7 1-13, 50.\nAppeal by respondent from order entered 18 August 1994 in Burke County District Court by Judge Nancy L. Einstein. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 November 1995.\nStephen M. Schoeberle for petitioner-appellee Burke County Department of Social Services.\nRussell R. Becker for respondent-appellant." }, "file_name": "0201-01", "first_page_order": 235, "last_page_order": 239 }